Scam report against | @sonicrefs | $222

[beastmode]

01 — PAYMENT INFORMATION
 
Two separate crypto payments were made to two different wallets. $200 to SonicRefs on January 13, 2026 via 0.063 ETH. Confirmed on-chain. $22 to @onlybcfg directly on January 16, 2026 via 0.0067 ETH. Confirmed on-chain.

02 — FINDINGS
 
All screenshots, the full video frame by frame, the forum thread, and both payment records were reviewed.
SonicRefs gave a direct written guarantee before payment: "documents + we can reverify as many times u need + same day delivery." A specific written promise overrides any general ToS disclaimer.
The account was handed over with "We're reviewing your information" already displayed on the dashboard. @onlybcfg said this was normal. It was not.
The $20 deposit advertised as included was deposited and immediately withdrawn before delivery. The account arrived at zero balance.
The 1-month static proxy and phone number listed on the sales page were never provided.
When Wise requested new documentation, @onlybcfg submitted an AI-generated selfie containing a physical impossibility. Wise rejected it. @onlybcfg never denied it when challenged. He then stopped responding entirely.
@onlybcfg admitted in the group chat: "I use real human drops to pass verifications. I don't use uploaded documents or fullz. I don't have images of the IDs or docs." The reverification guarantee was impossible to honor from day one.
SonicRefs collected the payment, built the group, assigned the worker, and managed every step. The intermediary defense does not hold.
On the buyer's side, sending a transfer under his own name to an account under a different identity was a foreseeable risk. However the seller confirmed it would work without any warning. That duty belonged to the seller.

03 — RESOLUTION AND FINAL DECISION
 
Both parties have 72 hours to come forward with one of the following.
Full refund of $222 with payment proof submitted to this thread. Status will be updated to Resolved upon confirmation.
Or a functional replacement with all advertised components included and reverification capability actually demonstrated.
No response within 72 hours results in a permanent ban. @SonicRefs @dating001

[dating001]

@SonicRefs said he will update as soon as possible

[SonicRefs]

I am just waiting my provider reply if he doesn't reply by the timeframe given i will refund @dating001 myself and we are really sorry about this delay! Thanks @beastmode for reviewing this case!

[SonicRefs]

@beastmode 

This conclusion is completely out of hand. As mentioned before, the account was closed PRIOR to contacting us, a CLOSED account is not a account which requires "reverification", it is not our duty to solve CLOSED accounts.

Anything regarding claims related to "sales page" don't hold up, at the time of the deal the page was nonexistence, therefor how are we responsible for upholding a agreement that was non existant at the time of order?

"however the seller confirmed it would work without any warning". I did not confirm anything would work, I only provided the account, I simply explained what the definition of IBAN was and its basic capability. The BUYER requested Wise specifically, if he requested his own platform should it not be the buyers responsibility to know what he's asking for? As you said, it was a foreseable risk... If the buyer did not forsee anything it is due to his lack of knowledge and competance. We gave no obligation or requirement that we will tell you how to use accounts, educate you on every individual platform/actions risks, nor did we obligate that we should teach you how to operate the platform. All we simply did was provide the account as requested.

Additionally... The client VOUCHED for the service + account, he stated after everything was delivered and finalized that he was satisfied with the service, so how can he turn around now that he flagged and closed the account to blame it on us?

This was not a "reverification", this account was closed before ever being brought up to our attention, and when being brought up we stated as well not much can be done... the account was already CLOSED

[beastmode]

@SonicRefs

I want to go through your response and ask you some direct questions, because a few things still don't add up. You say the account was closed before you were contacted. Let's go through exactly what happened and when.

On February 5 the account was temporarily restricted. Santhosh contacted @onlybcfg the same day. That is not someone reaching out about a closed account. That is someone reaching out about a restricted account on the exact same day the restriction happened.

After being contacted, your worker actively participated in the appeal process. An AI-generated selfie was submitted to Wise as part of that appeal. On February 13 Wise sent an email stating they could not accept the submitted photo and requested a new real photograph with valid documents. On February 17, rather than providing valid new documentation, @onlybcfg told Santhosh to resubmit the same documents that had already been rejected. On February 18 Wise finalized their decision and kept the account closed.

So the sequence is clear. Temporary restriction on February 5, active involvement from your worker throughout the appeal process, permanent closure on February 18 after a failed appeal that your worker directly participated in. At what point exactly was the account already fully closed before you were contacted?

Regarding the sales page, this point is acknowledged on our end. It is possible the page was not live at the time of this specific sale and we will not hold you accountable for content that may not have existed then. That point is dropped.

You say you only explained what IBAN was. The group chat shows @onlybcfg responding "You can receive money" and "Correct" to a direct question about whether funds sent to that account would appear in the Wise balance. That is not a definition. That is a confirmation. Can you clarify what exactly was being confirmed there?

You say the buyer should have known the risks. The buyer did not know that sending from his own name to an account under a different identity would flag the transaction. You operate this type of service regularly. Did you at any point warn him that this specific action could cause a restriction?

You say the client vouched. He did, at delivery on January 20, before using the account for anything. The account was then restricted on February 5 during the first actual use. Do you consider a vouch given before any real usage a permanent sign-off on everything that follows?

You say this was not a reverification. Your own message before payment reads "we can reverify as many times u need." When Wise requested new documentation your worker did attempt to respond. He submitted a selfie for the appeal. However Wise rejected it because the image contained a physical impossibility that indicated it was AI-generated. When Wise then asked for a new valid photograph, @onlybcfg told Santhosh to resubmit the exact same documents that had already been rejected. Shortly after he stopped responding entirely. It is also worth noting that back on January 20, the same day the account was delivered, @onlybcfg stated in the group chat: "I use real human drops to pass verifications. I dont use uploaded documents or fullz so I cant do that. I dont have images of the ids or docs." So the worker attempted to help but was working with no valid documents from the very beginning. How does that not constitute a failure to honor your own guarantee?

Waiting for your response on each of these before any further action is taken.

[SonicRefs]

On February 5 the account was temporarily restricted. Santhosh contacted @onlybcfg the same day. That is not someone reaching out about a closed account. That is someone reaching out about a restricted account on the exact same day the restriction happened.

- On febrary 5 when he reached out to me, there was a email regarding a temporary restriction, however following up to that email was a newer email informing Santosh that the account has been closed, as highlighted in my screenshots in the other replies. The account was temporarily restricted, then it was confirmed to be closed in the email which followed that one, which all was recieved before any contact to us.

------------

So the sequence is clear. Temporary restriction on February 5, active involvement from your worker throughout the appeal process, permanent closure on February 18 after a failed appeal that your worker directly participated in. At what point exactly was the account already fully closed before you were contacted?

- The appeal process was for the closed account, not a temporary restriction. The order is as follows, client recieved email of restriction -> client then recieved follow up mail of closure instead of restriction -> client contacted us. In this order the account was closed prior to contacting us, therefor not making it a reverfication that he claims, and even though we provided "active participation" that was out of a friendly attempt to help out, after already stated that nothing much can be done before any attempts, that was a friendly attempt which was not a responsibility and which is what santosh is trying to take advantae of.

-----------

You say you only explained what IBAN was. The group chat shows @onlybcfg responding "You can receive money" and "Correct" to a direct question about whether funds sent to that account would appear in the Wise balance. That is not a definition. That is a confirmation. Can you clarify what exactly was being confirmed there?

- The "Iban allows international bank transfers", and the "correct" regarding if money would show up in wise balance was just simply letting the client know how IBAN works, a google search can provide the same response. However, flagging the account is a different story and is a differet topic entirely. Nothing was being confirmed about flagging or risks, that was simply explaining how IBAN works.


---------

You say the buyer should have known the risks. The buyer did not know that sending from his own name to an account under a different identity would flag the transaction. You operate this type of service regularly. Did you at any point warn him that this specific action could cause a restriction?

- I operate a service where people come to me requesting many different platforms at their own request, Its not my responsibility to warn/educate/inform the client on account abuse, we are not mentors nor teachers, especially for accounts which the client requested on his own, not a account that was reccomended. That is not my obligation.

-----------

You say the client vouched. He did, at delivery on January 20, before using the account for anything. The account was then restricted on February 5 during the first actual use. Do you consider a vouch given before any real usage a permanent sign-off on everything that follows?

- The vouch stands as a satisfaction of the service, satisfaction of product, delivery, and the way the service was handled. The client was satisfied with the service as stated in the vouch they willingly provided.

----------

You say this was not a reverification. Your own message before payment reads "we can reverify as many times u need." When Wise requested new documentation your worker did attempt to respond. He submitted a selfie for the appeal. However Wise rejected it because the image contained a physical impossibility that indicated it was AI-generated. When Wise then asked for a new valid photograph, @onlybcfg told Santhosh to resubmit the exact same documents that had already been rejected. Shortly after he stopped responding entirely. It is also worth noting that back on January 20, the same day the account was delivered, @onlybcfg stated in the group chat: "I use real human drops to pass verifications. I dont use uploaded documents or fullz so I cant do that. I dont have images of the ids or docs." So the worker attempted to help but was working with no valid documents from the very beginning. How does that not constitute a failure to honor your own guarantee?

- In the event that a common reverification was required, wise provides verification link, which then would be sent to the drop who would perform the verification. HOWEVER, this was not a common reverification, it actually wasn't the process of a reverification at all, it was a account CLOSURE appeal, which is entirely different. As mentioned before we were attempting to provide friendly support as just a helping hand, not out of obligation. Before the appeal process was started, the client was informed that because the account is CLOSED, that nothing much can be done, however he still went through with the attempt and out of good faith we tried to help him out with a bit by contacting the drop for documentation and providing it to him, the appeal process required holding a sign with specific numbers, which wasn't possible to provide at that time so we attempted to provide what was available. However, as I stated before, this was not common reverification or practice, this was a CLOSED account which is NOT our obligation, reverification and appeal are 2 seperate things. We lended a helping hand in good faith just to provide some support even after mentioning not much can be done, however that was not our obligation to do so at all and now the client is trying to exploit our attempt to help him when we werent obligated to get a refund of the full amount of the account when we aren't responsible for his abuse to the account, or responsible for the appeal process of a already closed account.

[dating001]

@SonicRefs 
 1)  Timeline clarification:

On February 5, the account was temporarily restricted, not fully closed.
I contacted your worker on the same day (Feb 5) immediately after the restriction.

Your claim that the account was already fully closed before I contacted you is incorrect.

If the account was already fully closed:

    ur worker clearly stated wise will not ask docs again during appeal but why wise ask docs during appeal process
   
    Why did your worker actively participate in the appeal process?

    Why were documents submitted to Wise after Feb 5?

    Why did Wise continue the verification process until Feb 18?

This clearly shows the account was still in a recoverable/review state, not a finalized closure at the time of contact.

  2)  Your active involvement proves responsibility:

Your worker:

    Submitted documents for appeal

    Claimed no further verification issues would occur

    Provided incorrect/invalid (AI-generated) selfie

    Failed to provide documents when Wise explicitly requested to take new photo of docs

    Stopped responding completely at a critical stage

This directly contributed to the final closure on Feb 18.

This is not “goodwill support” — this is failed execution of the promised reverification support.

3).Guarantee vs reality:

before vouch, you clearly promised:

    “we can reverify as many times u need”

However your worker himself admitted during appeal:

    He does not have access to real documents

    He cannot provide proper verification materials

This means the guarantee was impossible to fulfill from the beginning.

  4)  IBAN confirmation & risk:

Your worker clearly confirmed:

    “You can receive money” when i asked international transfers to iban

At no point was I warned that:

    Sending from my own name could trigger restriction

This is critical information that only an experienced seller would know.

   5) Final point:

This case is not about “how Wise works” or “buyer knowledge”.

It is about:

    A product delivered under review notification

    A guarantee that could not be fulfilled after i vouch believing all urs and ur worker assurances

    Invalid AI selfie submitted

    Lack of support when wise ask to take new photo of docs and submit

These are seller-side failures, not user misuse.